|
Changing his Story
Senator Kerry has said that Bush "changed his story" yet again on Meet the Press, when he replaced WMD as a rationale for war with removal of Saddam Hussein, a bad man.
Senator Kerry is right. Bush has been all over the map on Iraq, and has offered every possible combination of motive and intent in responding to various criticisms before, during, and after the unnecessary invasion that has taken the lives of over 500 US servicemen.
For example, here is Bush in January:
"The stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear," Bush told reporters during an appearance with Mexican President Vicente Fox in Monterrey, Mexico. "Like the previous administration, we were for regime change."
Story
Here is Bush lying to Tim Russert yesterday, saying that when Congress passed the Iraq resolution it had done so after making a judgment that removing Saddam from power was necessary:
Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
...and indicating that WMD or no WMD, he always intended to remove Saddam because Saddam was a "threat."
And the man was a threat, and we dealt with him, and we dealt with him because we cannot hope for the best. We can't say, Let's don't deal with Saddam Hussein. Let's hope he changes his stripes, or let's trust in the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Let's let us, kind of, try to contain him. Containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman.
But here is Condi and Colin in October 2002, insisting that avenging Poppy by removing Saddam had nothing to do with Junior's attention to Iraq, and the only concern was disarmament.
Bush took this position at the time the concept of "regime change" by force was under fire by alarmed allies, and he was trying to deceive the world community into believing "regime change" wasn't an important part of his agenda:
Saddam Could Stay in Power
By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Two top Bush administration officials said yesterday that America would accept the continuation of Saddam Hussein‘s regime if Iraq disarms, apparently backing away from the official U.S. policy of seeking the ouster of the dictator.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said in television interviews yesterday that a disarmed Saddam could remain in power, and Mr. Powell said that is now President Bush‘s position.
"Remember where regime change came from — it came from the previous administration," Mr. Powell said on NBC‘s "Meet the Press."
That demand, he said, "came out of the Congress in 1998, when it was thought the only way to get rid of weapons of mass destruction was to change the regime. We will see whether cooperate or not."
At that time, it was Tim Russert himself who asked Powell about Saddam remaining in power. So why didn't he force Bush to defend that position yesterday, when Bush was attempting to shift his rationale once again?
"So can save himself, in effect, and remain in power?" host Tim Russert asked Mr. Powell.
"All we‘re interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction. We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime. But the principal offense here are weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Powell said.
Contrary to what Bush said yesterday, Congress didn't make the judgment that "Saddam Hussein needed to be removed" when they passed the Iraq resolution. It made the judgment that Saddam needed to be disarmed. Furthermore, even Bush didn't argue that "Saddam Hussein needed to be removed" when faced with criticism over a policy of "regime change."
Why is this distinction important? Again, because in the absence of WMD, Bush is now arguing that Congress and the American people agree that the deaths of over 500 US servicemen were justified on the basis of removing an unarmed leader of a third world country from power - and that all along he had made the fact that removal of Saddam was the purpose of the war "clear" to Congress, the American people, and the world.
Russert: Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?
Bush: Every life is precious. Every person that is willing to sacrifice for this country deserves our praise, and yes.
www.mediawhoresonline.com
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
